in which affirmation and denial are valid, and it is customary for it to be suspended upon a condition, unlike the address and the accusation, in which that does not exist.

Section: If he says to his wife: "You are divorced, mariyah (ill) [in the accusative case, or nominative]," and he intends by it to describe her as being ill in the present, she is divorced immediately. If he intends by it: "You are divorced during the state of your illness," she is not divorced until she becomes ill, because this is a state (hal), and the state is a case in which the action occurs, like the adverbial of time (zaraf); the nominative case would be grammatically incorrect (lahn) because the state must be in the accusative. If he uses it absolutely and uses the accusative, it is interpreted as the state because "mariyah" (ill) is an indefinite noun that comes after the completion of the sentence as a descriptor for a definite noun, thus it is a state. If he uses the nominative, the most appropriate view is that the divorce occurs immediately, and it becomes a descriptor for "taliq" (divorced), which is the predicate of the nominal sentence. If he vocalizes it without a vowel (sukoon), it allows for two interpretations: one of them is that the divorce occurs immediately, because his saying: "You are divorced," entails the occurrence of the divorce immediately, and we have certainty regarding the existence of the requirement, while we are in doubt regarding what prevents its ruling, so we do not move away from certainty due to doubt. The second is that it does not occur except in the state of her illness, because his mentioning of illness in the context of divorce indicates its connection to it and its influence upon it, and it has no influence upon it except when it is a state (hal).

1274 - Issue: He said: (And if he says to her: "You are divorced when so-and-so arrives." Then he is brought arriving, dead or coerced, she is not divorced.)

As for if he is brought arriving while dead, or coerced while carried, she is not divorced because he did not "arrive" (qadima) himself; rather, he was "brought" (qudima bihi). This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. It is narrated from Abu Bakr that he breaks his oath because the action is attributed to him; that is why it is said: "The food entered the city," when it was carried into it. If he says: "You are divorced when the food enters the city," she is divorced when